I accidentally made the second half of the game harder for myself by not upgrading my armor. Oops. Ended up having to tinker with things for the last boss. But adjusting armor made the fight go from 2-3 hit KO’s to being able to actually take some hits. It was a lot of fun!
Honestly, this lawsuit is laughable. James Earl Jones himself allowed his voice to be used to train AI before his passing, and his family has given their blessing on this implementation in Fortnite.
Besides, it’s not like this Darth Vader AI is replacing any jobs; it’s a chat bot, capable of giving live responses to players across many live matches ongoing around the world. Unless it is feasible to hire a massive team of Darth Vader voice actors to be able to respond to player requests to “force choke me daddy Vader” live across hundreds of ongoing matches while staying completely in-character 24/7, their argument about Epic Games “replacing voice actors with AI” holds no water.
Honestly, if these versions have the complete up-to-date game printed on them that do not require servers to validate or update in order for me to play the game in the future, I do see the value in this. Doom the Dark Ages 85 megabytes news the other day was harrowing. Physical media hasn’t had the full game on it for a lot of games for quite a while now. If your disc doesn’t have the full game on it, then I don’t believe you own a physical copy of the game.
exactly! it’s a way to own a complete copy on disc, independent from the servers. I know there are other companies offering that specific thing, but more players in the space is a good thing imo
I am absolutely on the voice actors’ side here, but isn’t this a less than ideal argument? It seems to presume a right to be employed. If epic don’t want to use voice actors, why would they have to? I’m genuinely asking because isn’t this just a form of automation? Again, on the side of real voice actors, anti gen AI, I’m trying to understand.
This is the point of collective bargaining contracts. A union negotiates the rules by which their members and companies interact, sign a contract, and then both are bound by that contract for the term.
The union is claiming the contract they have in place prevents the automation of voice by the bound company unless they get agreement from the union first.
Oh I know how unions work, they’re quite important and do mostly very good work where I live. I just always assume any unions that manage to even exist in the US are little more than begrudgingly tolerated by employers. I didn’t realise they were referring to actual contractual obligations, I see. Thank you for clarifying.
There is no evidence that Guillemot or Deraine were directly involved in sexual harassment or bullying at the company, they are being accused of complicity.
Which has been said from the very beginning. They didn’t do it themselves, but they knew of it and didn’t do jack to stop it.
Do you enjoy having every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
EDIT: no arguments, just downvotes? Damn, I thought this place was supposed to be better than Reddit…
Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
Most startups don’t have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
If anything, startups can’t develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like “clicking a button does something” (or “glide with a pet”) from 30 years ago.
Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
But western companies at least have a tool to fight back or limit the flood.
Most startups don’t have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
Ah, the usual “if the solution is not absolutely 100% perfect, let’s throw out the solution”. Come on…
If anything, startups can’t develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like “clicking a button does something” (or “glide with a pet”) from 30 years ago.
Yeah, this happens all of once every billion times. Clearly the system is stupid and needs to be killed so that nobody who isn’t extremely rich can actually develop anything new without being immediately put out to pasture.
I just wanna know which amazing video game innovations We are protecting here in America. Are we talking about the failing franchises that have been milking their customers for 15 years? Have we done anything really innovative recently? Remakes delayed games and flops.
I just wanna know which amazing video game innovations We are protecting here in America
First, I’m not talking specifically about America. Second, I’m not talking about “amazing innovations”. Copyright is also for trademarks, very characteristic gameplay mechanics, etc. For example, Playrix made “Fishdom” which was copy-paste Worms. Team17 won the case and protected their IP.
Are we talking about the failing franchises that have been milking their customers for 15 years?
Umm… No? What does that have to do with copyright or IP protection…?
Have we done anything really innovative recently?
Have you tried looking at titles from other publishers than Ubisoft, EA or Activition?
Eh it’s all just stolen and borrowed code. Whens the next Dawn of war or command and conquer coming out? Oh never. locked behind IP laws and timid corpos.
Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what’s actually happening.
If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don’t want to.
I don’t care where the company making the claim is from, as long as it acquired the IP legally and has a valid claim for protecting it.
The way the patent system works is bad in many, many, MANY ways, but saying “copyright and patent laws need to die” is just idiotic. As it is, we at least have a semblance of rules. Without it, it’s just “whoever can reproduce and mass produce a promising product faster”. And that means: China because they already make everything.
I’m talking about 70$ games man. Im talking about IP being locked away for decades. Genres of games dying off to push profitability of bigger projects. Strangling out smaller studios any way possible. I’m talking about Gamers. They came for GAMERS.
You’re talking nonsense, is what you’re talking about.
What does a genre drying up have to do with IP or copyright? Like, are you even reading your own words?
Strangling out smaller studios any way possible
Supergiant Games, CDPR, Larian, Sandfall Interactive and every single indie creator out there clearly haven’t been informed of how horrible their situation is. Maybe you should contact them and let them know that the 10/10 games they’ve been making are impossible to make due to copyright and IP protection laws?
Also was loosly talking about my increased business costs associated with china tariffs. Let the chinese steal shit and make it cheap for me thats what im talking abou.
That’s the US law system, not the IP system in general.
There are examples of smaller companies managing to protect their IP (Finjan vs Symantec, Unwired Planet vs. Huawei, Neo Wireless vs. Sony, etc., etc - that’s just from a quick search).
I’m not saying that the copyright system in place is perfect, but saying “copyright and patent laws need to die” is just delusional.
Patents have an expiry for a reason and the expiry date is pretty generous IMO. It’s thought as “Startup x can invent and make money off it but after it the market should take over so further improvements can be made.” Imagine if they patented CRISPR Cas9 or the first DNA sequencing method. It would limit science for the entire time of the expiry but not after.
Claiming invention patent for the pokeballs more than 20 years after the game came out is absurd. They can keep the brand, trademark and IP for their weirdly long time but innovations should become public so the market can continue innovating.
I don’t think patents and copyright “need to die”, but they are currently both overly broad and last far too long. Copyright protection especially has no justifiable reason to be even 1/4 as long as it is.
every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
If it’s a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn’t just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
You just described the dream of most startups. The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired by a big corp so that their idea/product can continue growing, because without acquisition growth is severely limited.
If it’s a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn’t just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
First of all: very often it’s literally a 1:1 copy.
Secondly: imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter, whatever. It sells well, but you don’t have the money to start a large-scale production, you’re doing OK with sales and are looking for investors, but things are fairly slow. In comes a Chinese dude, buys one auto-painter from you, brings it home, dismantles the thing, copies everything (potentially making some changes), and starts a massive-scale production in his factory. Due to the mass-production, worse materials, and lower labour costs, he sells the product at 20% the price of yours. The market is saturated with his knock-off, you’re left with zero money.
Is this xenophobia to you? Or someone stealing your product and killing your business?
The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired
Yeah, I’m not talking about them being acquired. What gave you that idea? I specifically used the words “steals their idea”.
imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters? As bad as this sort of stuff is in software world it’s soooo much worse in hardware world. The licensing fees for every single little piece of IP that go into it would nickel and dime even large businesses out of building anything like that. Sure there’s also technical difficulties with building one, but those are surmountable. However, a business model that could survive the constant threats of litigation, licensing fees and turn even a mild profit does not exist.
Is this xenophobia to you?
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
someone stealing your product and killing your business?
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner? In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters?
I’m just impressed that you managed to miss the point by so much.
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
Correct. Which is precisely why copyright law was established in the first place and why companies like Facebook, Google or Amazon were able to become what they were without Microsoft or Apple just copy-pasting what they did.
The copyright laws are not perfect, far from it. But they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner?
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
Yes, like I said: the copyright laws are not perfect. But saying that it would better WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS is insanity.
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively. Apple tried with Ping/eWorld, Safari/Spotlight but didn’t really get into the web host space. Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
That’s a rather impressive hay golem you’ve built there.
WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS
We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws and you have yet to explain why it would be insane without changing scope or inventing fanciful scenarios.
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively
So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code? As in: you’re 100% certain that’s the case here?
Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
No. It’s not worth mentioning in a topic that has nothing to do with that fact…
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
It amazes me how you see a company NOW being a Fortune 500, and going “waagh, IP protection only serves the massive corpos!!!” without realising how many of those companies became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections.
It equally amazes me how you see the law being used by said companies most of the time (because, you know, they’re larger) and go “we can do without these laws” without blinking an eye, or a single neuron firing towards the thought that… these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.
We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws
So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code?
Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code? You seemed pretty adamant that reverse engineering was theft previously, and assuming you haven’t changed your definition of theft then yes, according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case.
became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections
Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.
these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.
Just because they can, doesn’t mean it’s something to expect. There are orders of magnitude between how often they protect, and how often the destroy. You a big lottery fan or something?
This is what my reply was to
Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents and not getting into the rest of the weeds and didn’t properly communicate that. I had assumed there would be more than a single neuron between the two of us, but that was clearly presumptive of me.
Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code?
Depends on the patent.
according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case
It’s not “my definition of theft”, it’s “theft”. If you’re 100% certain, hit Amazon lawyers up, I’m sure they’ll love to talk to you about it - it’s literally free money for them and maybe a big payout for you, right?
Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.
The hilarious thing is that you’re like so many other “revolutionaries” who come in and go: “oh no, the X rules are stifling the market/competition/free exchange of information/whatever” while being completely ignorant on how these rules came to be.
It’s like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they’re losing profits to it, completely oblivious to the fact that it was the capitalists of the XIX century who created them to increase profits (because having to replace skilled labourers became a high cost factor).
You strike me as someone who thinks that copyright and other IP protection laws are something that was set up in XX (maybe XIX) century as a means to protect the wealthy. Am I wrong?
Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents
Right. So when I refused to change the scope, you decided to call me an idiot. How very gentlemanly of you.
If he thinks any studio is going to pick up his ridiculous ideas for a game without having Hideo can-do-no-wrong Kojima at the helm of the studio, then he’s as self-absorbed as I think he is.
Depending on how detailed the material he leaves behind is (or how detailed they want to pretend it is) they could likely still get some mileage out of it. We might end up with a Tom Clancy situation.
Maybe, but I really doubt it. The only reason his ideas even remotely work is because he has a history of wackjob narratives inside otherwise (metal gear) solid games + complete authorial control over the entire product. Give one of his games to someone else to produce and they need to be exceptionally strong and resilient in the face of a team and investors that will naturally - as a part of development - be asking “what about this, people won’t like it, or it doesn’t play test well.”
The “why” for every little part of the game concept needs to exist or whoever is left in control will have a very difficult time explaining what the value is when that question is raised.
All this is perhaps superseded if Kojima names an heir in addition to passing along a bunch of ideas.
Apple had its steering rules overturned. Nothing in the new ruling changes the initial ruling that Epic violated App Store rules and was justifiably removed.
Cuz it’s egomaniacal behavior. He thinks he’s so cool and unique and innovative that his ideas are worth something even after he perishes, sometime in the next TWENTY or so years. It’s not like he’s bedridden right now.
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne